Ordinary Gweilo

Leading libel lawyer Peter Carter-Ruck died on Friday. Readers of Private Eye will know the name because he was frequently writing to the magazine demanding damages for something they had written, and when they felt confident or brave they would publish the letters. One of his former partners has written a piece in today’s Guardian criticizing him for being unscrupulous in persuading people to sue for libel when they were unlikely to win significant damages but could end up paying a large legal bill.

There is, of course, a delicious irony in the fact that a former partner should write an article like this just after Carter-Ruck’s death. It would not have been published whilst he was still alive, because he would have been sure to sue for libel. Even if he had little or no chance of winning the case, it would still have been very troublesome for the newspaper or magazine involved, which is why cases are often settled with an apology and payment of nominal damages. In the longer term, the threat of legal action can act as a strong deterrent against writing about people who are likely to sue, which is not good for freedom of the press.

The Guardian has been involved in separate libel actions brought by two Conservative MPs, and eventually emerged victorious both times.

The case brought by Jonathan Aitken collapsed only when investigators were able to find proof that his wife could not possibly have been in Paris to pay a hotel bill as had claimed. This information was only discovered days before the trial, and without it the Guardian could well have lost the case. Aitken was eventually convicted of perjury and perverting the course of justice, and sent to prison. He was also declared bankrupt.

Curiously. Neil Hamilton (another Tory MP) also stayed in the Ritz Hotel in Paris, and this time the bill had been paid by Mohamed Al Fayed. Hamilton sued, but then withdrew the action, and ended up bankrupt and with his reputation ruined. There is a marvellous website that tries to defend Neil Hamilton and criticize The Guardian’s role in the affair.